MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027473514 · doi:10.7901/2169-3358-2003-1-245

Integrating Data, Resources, and Capabilities in the Great Lakes: Impacting Federal, State, Tribal, Local, and Private Partnerships through the Area Committee

2003· article· en· W2027473514 on OpenAlex
Thomas Rayburn

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Oil Spill Conference Proceedings · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatershedRecreationSuperfundEnvironmental planningBusinessRemedial actionEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementHazardous wasteEcologyEngineeringEnvironmental remediationWaste managementContamination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The Great Lakes of the United States and Canada comprise, essentially, a closed freshwater system in which over 31 million individuals coexist within the industrial, agricultural, and recreational economies of the region. With annual replacement rates of less than one percent, pollutants introduced into the Great Lakes can, over time, concentrate, resuspend, and infiltrate the biologic system through annual lake turnover, navigational dredging, and cycling through the food web. Past spills of oil and hazardous substances resulted in highly elevated levels of byproducts such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), heavy metals like mercury, and toxics including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). These have resulted in stream degradation, fish consumption advisories, fish kills, and beach closures, with impacts felt at the local, watershed, regional, and binational levels. Traditionally, in the Great Lakes, local and regional policy groups have interacted with the Federal government through such programs as Areas of Concern (AOC) and the LakeWide Management Plan (LaMP) process; but these venues have not allowed direct interaction with the response and remedial community at any level. Area Committees, on the other hand, and also operating at more or less the local level and with a broad spectrum of participation, are uniquely situated to evolve and assist with specific issues on a timely basis. The coordinative and collaborative abilities of the Area Committee allow for initiating timely information gathering, focused decision-making, and action implementation, if necessary. The benefits of Area Committee involvement are two fold and profit both the policy and response groups in the Great Lakes.The concerns, historic practices, and larger-scale/longer-term vision can be vetted through the policy groups to the Area Committee.The Area Committee can, in turn, influence its members in specific directions through modified scopes of investigation and training/exercising that specifically address Area responsibilities. The Area Committee's ability to expand its audience and augment its knowledge base is critical to developing a fully integrated multi-tiered and multi-missioned planning, preparedness, and response community.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it